Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fooloso4 wrote:
That depends on how you define religion. If God is excluded then my point stands. God is not a necessary condition for morality.

The answer is the same number of cultures that have been established without religion: zero.

dclements said:

Even if I wanted to, I can not believe in God; baring the possibility of someone brainwashing me to a point where I am no longer the person I am today. I can only imagine the reasons for my disbelief are as alien to you as your reason for believing are alien to me. It might help if I mention that my own beliefs are sort of alone the lines of Buddhism or Jainism (who tend to be either atheistic or not really caring if God exist), however I really don't adhere to any single form of religious doctrine.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think other atheist that come to the forum are far past the point of no return and are about as likely to be converted as a brick wall could be turned into a ham sandwich by talking to it.

How does Christianity brainwash us?

-- Updated December 20th, 2016, 5:03 am to add the following --

Dear bloggers,

Ormond requested that we share more of our personal stories and testimonies on the thread and ease up on the use of Biblical language and arguments. Do you think sharing what is personal helps?

Sincerely,
WD

Dark Matter:

The answer is the same number of cultures that have been established without religion: zero.

I guess a more interesting question might be: How many cultures have been established without a tradition of regarding moral codes as coming from non-human conscious entities? I don't know the answer because I don't know enough about the global history of religious, spiritual and moral thought. Perhaps others can enlighten me. How about, say, aboriginal Australians - do they traditionally regard their societal morals as coming from a god-like figure?

Whitedragon wrote:Ormond requested that we share more of our personal stories and testimonies on the thread and ease up on the use of Biblical language and arguments. Do you think sharing what is personal helps?

Well, to challenge my own idea, it does depend what your goals are. I was assuming I knew, and shouldn't have.

If your goal is to have the same old theist vs. atheist arguments everyone has memorized and have your posts auto-rejected by most members in this particular place, you are probably on the right track. If your goal is to open reader's minds to Christianity, you're probably not on the right track.

Religion is a deeply personal business, or at least should be, and on a philosophy forum the routine for we nerds is to hold all that scary emotional business at a safe distance by intellectualizing the subject of religion to an extreme degree. To the degree any theist joins this game, they are playing on our turf, and are making it easy for us to stiff arm any opportunity to actually learn something about religious experience. If your presentation is purely in the form of logical arguments, we will relentlessly focus on rejecting religion, instead of focusing on learning something new about it.

Given that we are mostly men, the ideal Christianity salesman would probably be a woman who is skilled at sneaking past the many defenses we nerd men have arrayed to protect our emotions. As example, if the Catholic Church was serious about restoring it's prominent place in Western civilization the first thing they would do is get rid of all the celibate men priests and turn the whole operation over to Catholic women. But, they aren't serious, so this will likely never happen.

Ormond:

Fooloso4 wrote:It really is quite disconcerting to hear theists talk about how they would behave without the fear of divine retribution.

Except that's not what he said.

What he said was [emphasis added]:

Yep, make the most of the time we have - like Ted Bundy and any number of other career criminals. I read somewhere that the first line of the oath taken by "made" Sicilian Mafia members is, "There is no God". The idea behind such a statement is, there is no one on the other side to punish your actions here on earth, so do whatever you like. Doesn't sound very "positive and reasonable" to me. Atheism means there are no rules.

Ormond:

Even if there is no God, we should recognize that the concept alone has done a great deal to civilize Western civilization, and the political rules all of us must obey arise in large part from Judaism and Christianity.

The concept of God alone has done little to civilize Western civilization because men all too easily believe that what they are doing is God’s will. Here is an interesting example because it not only addresses the issue of civilizing but raises the question of whether someone is acting on God’s authority or his own:

Moses saw that the people were running wild and that Aaron had let them get out of control and so become a laughingstock to their enemies.So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'" The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day." (Exodus 32:25-29)

Had the Lord said this to Moses or was he using God’s name to assert his own authority? We are told that God was angry and that Moses pleaded with him not to destroy the people and that God had relented. We are not, however, told that God told Moses to tell those who sided with him to kill their brother and friend and neighbor who had not. Moses has smashed the tablets and when he goes back up for a new set of tablets there is an important difference: the first tablets were “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18) but the second were written down by Moses (34:28).


Our political rules owe much more to Greece, Rome, and the Enlightenment philosophers. In addition, as it has been said, Christianity is Platonism for the masses. Put differently, philosophy has civilized religion.

The highest Christian moral authorities never claim anything, they just walk the walk.

The highest Christian moral authorities do not need to claim their authority, they have inherited it through the institution that has claimed its moral authority.

Except that you forgot to name them. The fact is that people from all over the world have been trying to flood in to Western culture for centuries, and this is due at least in part to the moral foundation provided by Judeo-Christian philosophy. The people have voted, with their feet.

I did not forget to name them. All one need to do is look beyond the early limited influence of Christianity. People do not flood into Western culture, they flood into countries where there is individual freedom and the hope for prosperity.

What history shows is that believers and atheists alike can display both the highest and lowest moral behavior humanity is capable of.

And that was my point!


Dark Matter:

The answer is the same number of cultures that have been established without religion: zero.

This is not a definition of religion and does not address the main issue - the question of God as the foundation of morality.

Aristotle’s ethics is not based on God or religion. Deontology is not based on God or religion. Utilitarianism is not based on God or religion.

The highest Christian moral authorities do not need to claim their authority, they have inherited it through the institution that has claimed its moral authority.

The highest Christian moral authorities are typically too busy walking the walk to be spending much time talking the talk. You have the walkers and the talkers confused, a common and understandable error.

Ormond:

The highest Christian moral authorities are typically too busy walking the walk to be spending much time talking the talk. You have the walkers and the talkers confused, a common and understandable error.

It would help if you provided specifics. I think you are confusing talk about authority and talk based on authority. Or do you think that those who walk do not talk? Are they only interested in walking or in helping others to walk as well? Do they only teach others to walk by walking or by also by talking? Is their authority established by how others judge their walking or are they able to walk with authority because it has been bestowed upon them from a higher authority?

It may be that there are those who walk and are not concerned with justifying their walk, but unless we imagine that we are ourselves the highest Christian moral authorities we must talk. Christ walked on water but he also talked. His followers attempt to follow in his footsteps but also talk. Christ said “follow me” but his followers have been walking in different ways and talking in different ways ever since.

Fooloso4 wrote:
This is not a definition of religion and does not address the main issue - the question of God as the foundation of morality.

Aristotle’s ethics is not based on God or religion. Deontology is not based on God or religion. Utilitarianism is not based on God or religion.

Actually, the main issue is about what God has done wrong. And like every atheist I've encountered, you are anthropomorphizing God: namely, you are ascribing human affections to the Infinite. To say God is Good is not to say God is morally good in the same sense a person is.

Besides, you didn't answer the question of how many civilizations rose without religion of some kind — you simply dodged it. Please, just name one.

Fooloso4 wrote:Or do you think that those who walk do not talk?

We were discussing the "highest moral authority". In that context I am proposing that the real Christians, the ones who walk the walk the most earnestly, are too busy walking to do that much talking.

Here's the specific example you requested, though it's not explicitly Christian. My wife is a massage therapist, an avid wildlife rehabber, and um, then there's me to deal with too, a clear sign of sainthood. She's far too busy serving others to write sermons about it on the Internet. I on the other hand, serve mostly myself, so I have plenty of time to write great sermons about love.

Those you are rebelling against are people like you and me, the talkers. We're visible, we get heard, we jump on stage and grab the microphone and dominate the public discussion. If we were Christians, we'd be the newbies, morally speaking. The real Christians, the experts, are people like my wife. They're quietly changing the world for the better one situation at a time.

The great irony is that by pushing back against the talkers, we help them stay on stage, we feed their power. The Vatican loves it's rebels, for it is the rebels that are constantly saying how important the Vatican is.

Christ walked on water but he also talked. His followers attempt to follow in his footsteps but also talk. Christ said “follow me” but his followers have been walking in different ways and talking in different ways ever since.

Yes, all this is true, good points, but let's tighten it a bit to say SOME of his followers talk.

Like everyone else, I am selling my own interpretation of Christianity. There are as many versions as there are people, and mine is just one.

BTW, you might find this site by Catholic academic theologians interesting. Intelligent, educated and articulate in the best Catholic tradition, but they've pretty much stomped out all real engagement, in the worst Catholic tradition.

http://catholicmoraltheology.com

Dark Matter:

Actually, the main issue is about what God has done wrong. And like every atheist I've encountered, you are anthropomorphizing God: namely, you are ascribing human affections to the Infinite. To say God is Good is not to say God is morally good in the same sense a person is.

Actually, it is in accord with the main issue of the topic that I am addressing God in anthropomorphic terms, because this is the God that is being questioned. Why do you insist on turning this into a criticism of atheists when it is clear that God has already been defined as the God of the Bible?

Besides, you didn't answer the question of how many civilizations rose without religion of some kind — you simply dodged it. Please, just name one.

I cannot answer that question unless you first tell us what you mean by “religion of some kind”. Some define the term so broadly that there is nothing that is not religion of some kind including science and atheism. You do not answer the question, you beg it by claiming that there is no culture without religion of some kind. On the one hand you refer to the main issue but on the other you want to steer the discussion away from it.

Ormond wrote:

Whitedragon wrote:Ormond requested that we share more of our personal stories and testimonies on the thread and ease up on the use of Biblical language and arguments. Do you think sharing what is personal helps?

Well, to challenge my own idea, it does depend what your goals are. I was assuming I knew, and shouldn't have.

If your goal is to have the same old theist vs. atheist arguments everyone has memorized and have your posts auto-rejected by most members in this particular place, you are probably on the right track. If your goal is to open reader's minds to Christianity, you're probably not on the right track.

Religion is a deeply personal business, or at least should be, and on a philosophy forum the routine for we nerds is to hold all that scary emotional business at a safe distance by intellectualizing the subject of religion to an extreme degree. To the degree any theist joins this game, they are playing on our turf, and are making it easy for us to stiff arm any opportunity to actually learn something about religious experience. If your presentation is purely in the form of logical arguments, we will relentlessly focus on rejecting religion, instead of focusing on learning something new about it.

Given that we are mostly men, the ideal Christianity salesman would probably be a woman who is skilled at sneaking past the many defenses we nerd men have arrayed to protect our emotions. As example, if the Catholic Church was serious about restoring it's prominent place in Western civilization the first thing they would do is get rid of all the celibate men priests and turn the whole operation over to Catholic women. But, they aren't serious, so this will likely never happen.

Thank you Ormond,

Sharing personal experiences has proved unsuccessful in the past. However, you describe a process, which seem worth giving a shot.

Fooloso4 wrote:
Actually, it is in accord with the main issue of the topic that I am addressing God in anthropomorphic terms, because this is the God that is being questioned. Why do you insist on turning this into a criticism of atheists when it is clear that God has already been defined as the God of the Bible?

I'm sorry. I thought this was a philosophy of religion forum. I didn't know it was restricted to a religious philosophy, theistic personalism, that's easily targeted. Sounds cowardly, to me. Besides, where does it say in the Bible God is morally good? Where, in fact, is the word "moral" used at all?

Am I to suppose the likes of Thomas Aquinas and other Christians who posited a radically non-anthropomorphic God didn't believe in the God of the Bible? Or does it make more sense to suppose that you don't know what you're talking about so you confine yourself to criticizing what YOU think theism means?

So, not even one example of a culture that arose without some kind of religion, eh? Do you think hiding behind nuance makes you look thoughtful or evasive?

Ormond:

Those you are rebelling against are people like you and me, the talkers.

The problem is you paint an either/or image. Would we know anything of Jesus or anyone else you might think of as a moral authority and teacher if they had not talked or written? Would we have been able to learn from them if they had not? Our talk does not preclude our ability to act. In my opinion, moral deliberation is a necessity and moral deliberation requires us to talk. We do not talk simply to be heard, we talk as a mode of thinking. This requires that we not simply talk at but talk with others, and that requires that we listen as well. But listened does not mean keeping quiet in response to what we hear. It means to question and criticize and to use questions and criticisms of what we say as a way of evaluating our own ideas and beliefs.

BTW, you might find this site by Catholic academic theologians interesting. Intelligent, educated and articulate in the best Catholic tradition, but they've pretty much stomped out all real engagement, in the worst Catholic tradition.

Hmmm, talkers and stompers! I have more than a passing acquaintance with Catholic biomedical ethics. Some of it is thoughtful and reasonable, but there is much that suffers from a torturous logic that attempts to tow the partyline. As to walking the walk, the refusal of Catholic hospitals to perform certain procedures and deny patient self-determination has caused a great deal of harm and suffering.

-- Updated December 20th, 2016, 3:02 pm to add the following --

Dark Matter:

I'm sorry. I thought this was a philosophy of religion forum. I didn't know it was restricted to a religious philosophy, theistic personalism, that's easily targeted. Sounds cowardly, to me.

So, someone else asks a question about the God of the Bible as he conceives it, and you attack atheists for addressing this God? The only target here is the one you set up to attack.

Besides, where does it say in the Bible God is morally good? Where, in fact, is the word "moral" used at all?

Good question, but one that is rightly addressed to those who believe it. The term is anachronistic. It does not appear in the Bible. It is not, however, a term invented by atheists to refute claims about God from the Bible.

Am I to suppose the likes of Thomas Aquinas and other Christians who posited a radically non-anthropomorphic God didn't believe in the God of the Bible?

Well, you will find theistic personalists who have problems reconciling Aquinas view with those of the Bible. The God of the Bible, or more precisely some descriptions of God in the Bible, are anthropomorphic.

Or does it make more sense to suppose that you don't know what you're talking about so you confine yourself to criticizing what YOU think theism means?

You are barking up the wrong tree. From the beginning of my participation in this thread I have emphasized the fact that there are various concepts of God, including different concepts in the Bible. This quickly turned to Whitedragon’s own preference for what God means. You seem to be carrying on a battle in your own mind with an imagined atheist. Your fulminating anger is misdirected, but I suspect that that too will anger you.

So, not even one example of a culture that arose without some kind of religion, eh? Do you think hiding behind nuance makes you look thoughtful or evasive?

I am not interested in playing this game. You refuse to say what you mean by ‘some kind of religion’ and yet challenge me to either deny or affirm it. If you define the term broadly enough then there is probably few if any cultures that do not have some kind of religion. I am not a cultural anthropologists, just like you I can Google it and find possible candidates but you can just claim that whatever it is they do is a form of religion. What difference do you imagine it makes?

The point is, Fooloso4, that unless you can point to a culture that arose without some kind of religion, your whole argument falls apart. Is that why you're hiding behind nuance?

-- Updated December 20th, 2016, 5:22 pm to add the following --

So, answer the question, "What has God actually done wrong?" instead of using nuance, red herrings and exclusionary rules to make it easier for yourself.

-- Updated December 20th, 2016, 5:29 pm to add the following --

Or, you can at least admit that not all conceptions of God -- Christian or otherwise -- are subject to your criticisms.

-- Updated December 20th, 2016, 6:00 pm to add the following --

Getting back to the OP, Adam's sin was partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Most people, theists and atheists, leave out the last part and gorge themselves on the 'forbidden fruit': to even attempt to answer the question 'What has God actually done wrong ?' is sin.

Fooloso4 wrote:The problem is you paint an either/or image.

Because I'm referring to what is an either/or reality. Yes, many people talk the Christian moral talk, agreed. They are not the "highest moral authority". That title belongs to those too busy serving to talk the talk.

Would we know anything of Jesus or anyone else you might think of as a moral authority and teacher if they had not talked or written? Would we have been able to learn from them if they had not? Our talk does not preclude our ability to act. In my opinion, moral deliberation is a necessity and moral deliberation requires us to talk. We do not talk simply to be heard, we talk as a mode of thinking. This requires that we not simply talk at but talk with others, and that requires that we listen as well. But listened does not mean keeping quiet in response to what we hear. It means to question and criticize and to use questions and criticisms of what we say as a way of evaluating our own ideas and beliefs.

This is the talking of the talk. Evaluating our own ideas and beliefs is philosophy. This is not the business of the "highest moral authority". My wife does the work she does without the need of ANY such talking, or ANY such philosophizing, or ANY religion or anti-religion, her compassion is entirely sufficient.

The larger point here is that the best part of religion typically has little to with intellectualisms. Thus, philosophy forums tend to skip along the surface of the subject.

Hmmm, talkers and stompers! I have more than a passing acquaintance with Catholic biomedical ethics.

New article on that site today about sex with robots. Sex, sex, sex, one of the Catholic obsessions. Did you know that 60% of American Catholics voted for a boasting sexual predator in the recent election? Catholics have much to offer, but on the subject of sex I'm afraid their credibility as a community is shot, a self inflicted wound. I've been trying to explain that to them, which of course makes me incredibly popular.

On the plus side, Catholic Charities is the second leading provider of social services to the needy in the United States. A topic which seems not to interest Catholics much at all.

I have centuries of Catholic DNA in my blood. We are a strange people.